Turner, James et al v. Hamblin, Grary et al

Filing 12

ORDER directing the clerk of court to close this case. A strike is assessed to each plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/21/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JAMES ROBERT TURNER and
JOHN TOWNSEND,
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
12-cv-179-bbc
v.
GRARY HAMBLIN, JANEL NICKEL, WILLIAM
GROSSHANS, MORGAN DON, ROLAND
COUEY, FRANSON BRAIN, MIESNER
MICHAEL, TONY ASHWORTH, TIM
PETERSON, SANDY HAUTAMAKI, CHARLES
COLE, JOANNE LANE, TIM DOUMA,
KIELSLING DIANA, BRETT SUTTON, ZEIGLER
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiffs James Robert Turner and John Townsend, prisoners at the Columbia
Correctional Institution, brought an assortment of claims in this proposed civil action. In
a July 30, 2012 order, I dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated
their rights under the equal protection clause by engaging in racial discrimination and their
rights under the Eighth Amendment by maintaining inhumane conditions in segregation
units. I dismissed portions of the complaint containing vague claims about overcrowding
at the prison without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, gave plaintiffs a chance to amend
their complaint to provide more detail about this claim and warned them that failure to
submit a proposed amended complaint would result in the dismissal of the entire case for

1

failure to state a claim and the assessment of a strike against them under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
Now plaintiffs have responded, stating that they wish to voluntarily dismiss the
overcrowding claim without prejudice. It appears that they may do this under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41 1without a court order because defendants have not yet filed an answer, but that does
not change the fact that they have proven unable to adequately state a claim upon which
relief may be granted in this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a strike will be
assessed against them. Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (“A dismissal
is a dismissal, and provided that it is on one of the grounds specified in section 1915(g) it
counts as a strike, whether or not it's with prejudice.”) (citations omitted). The clerk of
court is directed to close the case.
Entered this 21st day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2